The really messed up part is that you can't just point out a problem and get it fixed, you have to actually sue the state to get them to fix it. This problem is sending people to jail wrongfully, and we know it, but we won't fix it unless you find someone with standing to sue, then sue and win.

(Until such time, of course, everyone affected can get f'ed.)

Why do you say "you can't just point out a problem and get it fixed?" There is nothing about the legal system that precludes a political solution to this problem.

The real problem is not the legal system, but the fact that the people of Alameda County are bad people (collectively, not individually) and have elected a government full of bad people. You're asking the court system to try to overcome a moral deficit in the political system (and ultimately, in voters).

You're not wrong, they're obviously (some of them, at least) bad people. I didn't fault the system specifically. You shouldn't need to issue and complete a legal challenge to get wrongs righted, but here we are.

I don't know how much you can really blame the voters, though. First-past-the-post is a large part of the problem, too. People want to make sure you're not a Republican before they vote for you, so you'd better make sure you be a Democrat! /s (or vice versa.)

Meanwhile, of course, the lobbyists are lined up with the checkbook out on both sides of the aisle.

I agree with you in regards to people voting in bad actors, ultimately though a major function of the legal system is to protect the few from the tyranny of the many. The legal system is failing here.

> The heart of the statement is that he is denied standing on public interest grounds because they dug up a case law that effectively nullified public interest ground exception which comes from u.s. code.

Nope; while the court elected not to use it's discretion to allow public interest standing, there were a stack of other reasons for denial cited that would have meant denial even had the court exercised it's discretion to allow public interest standing. Which is why they didn't do it: no court willl exercise that kind of discretion unless the issue affected by that discretion is decisive.